'I know' is an illusion (Jim Newman NONDUALITY)

[VeganAwake]

 

[Claymoree]

was this supposed to be sarcastic,  him talking as if he  knows? 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Claymoree

[VeganAwake]

Its paradoxical ❤

[Meister_Eckhart]

@VeganAwake This Newman message is quite baffling isn’t it? 
I assume @Leo Gura for one doesn’t share his message as, for example, Jim talks about consciousness and awareness not existing, they are part of the illusion and have a certain positionality to them. There’s only that which appears to arise, and it’s not real.

I wonder then, what IS real?

[Meister_Eckhart]

6 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

For something to appear to arise, Consciousness is required. What appears might not be real, but that which sees the appearing is real.

He would argue that there is no 'that which sees it', and that you create/put that on top of the appearance, and is illusory.

I'm not defending him, his view just has my curiosity.

[mandyjw]

I ADORE Jim Newman.

All these teachers are very different ways of pointing you toward the same thing. You can point to the same thing coming from vastly different directions. "It's" not located anywhere or directional but language pointing someone to something is and has to be. 

With Jim Newman, remember that there is no such thing as an absence of the thing. So he's throwing all these possible beliefs you're holding onto at you and squashing them ruthlessly like a bug. Love it. 

Also some people can only grasp the Jim Newman direction of pointing at stuff, and still believe that "not" is actually not. Other teachers will trigger them by talking about what it is. 

Edited November 12, 2020 by mandyjw

[VeganAwake]

9 hours ago, Meister_Eckhart said:

@VeganAwake This Newman message is quite baffling isn’t it? 
I assume @Leo Gura for one doesn’t share his message as, for example, Jim talks about consciousness and awareness not existing, they are part of the illusion and have a certain positionality to them. There’s only that which appears to arise, and it’s not real.

I wonder then, what IS real?

? oh yeah it's completely radical... Jim calls it Anarchy sometimes.

This communication takes the ideas of meaning, purpose and value and throws it out the window and makes Reality and Truth completely not applicable theories at best.

Edited November 12, 2020 by VeganAwake

[Javfly33]

He's on point. There is an illusory individual who "knows" things.

It's not that he doesn't know things, but since the things he/she knows are within the dream, his knowledge is limited and can't never fully grasp what is real/true.

To grasp reality you as God must wake up, trascending the limits of the individual POV and it's limited language.

[Nahm]

?

[Dodo]

Thank God i am not God, or I wouldn't get the parameters right

[abrakamowse]

Sometimes I think that to transcend everything you need to forget any idea of a self

[Mu_]

12 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

 

Jims, Tony Parsons, and Andreas Mullers message as I've said before is one of my favorites, however the only thing I'm not a fan of is I don't think they appreciate the value or use of other messages that are paradoxical to theirs, perhaps because they hold to much onto the accuracy of theirs. 

In my opinion you could say that any message has the ability to point to Truth or "What Is", even if it uses words and directions such as "I" "Choice" "Intention" "Connected" and many others words/metaphors these 3 get hooked up on, and tell the questioner that those aren't good words or messages due to the underlying false beliefs such words/metaphors hold, when in fact it just may be that these teachers are holding onto their own story and saying the questioner is wrong (and at other times, they are guiding them into a clearer seeing so to say).

Anyways, good video. 

 

[arlin]

7 hours ago, Mikael89 said:

but that which sees the appearing is real.

But that is separation. If there is no separation, that automatically becomes illusion right?

 

5 hours ago, mandyjw said:

Also some people can only grasp the Jim Newman direction of pointing at stuff, and still believe that "not" is actually not.

What do you mean by "Not" is actually "not"?

"Not" to me says that thing here, is it and it's not in the sense that is void.

And is the same void expressing itself in all of reality.

7 hours ago, Meister_Eckhart said:

I wonder then, what IS real?

He says that conscousness is part of illusion because there is no separation between subject and object.

he believes of course consciousness is something the brain does and is the sourse of "me". right @VeganAwake ? (btw how are you my friend?  ) 

[mandyjw]

12 minutes ago, arlin said:

What do you mean by "Not" is actually "not"?

"Not" to me says that thing here, is it and it's not in the sense that is void.

And is the same void expressing itself in all of reality.

All your mind can do is imagine "not" as something. Usually something scary, like a void. If it notices the lack of something, (which is actually itself imagining the lack of something) which it can never experience, it has to create the lack of something, which is something. 

I hope that makes sense, it really sounds like I'm talking round in circles, which I am because I'm describing a strange loop process of something creating itself.

Edited November 12, 2020 by mandyjw

[arlin]

2 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

All your mind can do is imagine "not" as something. Usually something scary, like a void.

What if i use the word full?

Everything is that but is not that.

In the sense that is that but it's also full.

and this fullness expresses itself in all of reality.

With this phrase here:

5 hours ago, mandyjw said:

Also some people can only grasp the Jim Newman direction of pointing at stuff, and still believe that "not" is actually not.

Are you saying that there is no "not", but there is that something which is indescribible in words that permeates all of reality? (call it void, full or any other thing like that. like infinity, etc...)

[mandyjw]

6 minutes ago, arlin said:

Are you saying that there is no "not", but there is that something which is indescribible in words that permeates all of reality? (call it void, full or any other thing like that. like infinity, etc...)

If it was, it would be disappointing. If it was not, it would be disappointing. Neither is nor not is the goldilocks, just right zone in which we "are", like Jim says, it's already what's wanted.

I like the word full. 

[arlin]

1 minute ago, mandyjw said:

If it was, it would be disappointing. If it was not, it would be disappointing. Neither is nor not is the goldilocks, just right zone in which we "are", like Jim says, it's already what's wanted.

I like the word full. 

Nice nice nice. How did you realize that? meditation? what kind of meditation?

 

[mandyjw]

@arlin No particular way, it's always been there. Everyone has a desire to know truth and love, and when you realize that awareness itself is the desire to know truth and love, you realize you already are what you're looking for. Feeling it and embodying it seems to be a process, but that's also what's wanted. 

[arlin]

@mandyjw This was awesome, thank you.

[VeganAwake]

1 hour ago, Mu_ said:

Jims, Tony Parsons, and Andreas Mullers message as I've said before is one of my favorites

If "you're" interested there's also Richard Sylvester, Lisa Cairns, Tim Cliss, Kenneth Madden, and Rose Roes who also discuss this communication rather well.